AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

Good work Philip. Thank you for putting this together and especially to come
up with this new approach.

Best,

tom


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. November 2007 15:51
An: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO
Betreff: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Wichtigkeit: Hoch


Excellent job Philip. Thanks.

I am very comfortable supporting this version.

I suggest that if there are any objections to any substantive items in the
document, they need to be communicated NLT COB on Thursday, 29 November.  If
none are received, Glen should go ahead and post our comments on Friday, 30
November.  If there are any substantive objections to any items, then I
think we have no other choice but to delete those items.  Minor edits
(spelling, grammar, etc.) should be okay if there are any.

Chuck Gomes

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and
destroy/delete the original transmission."


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:14 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
>
>
> Thank for the dialogue on our statement.
> I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC
> proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if
> we say nothing.
>
> I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be
> REACTIVE  to the BGC wording.
> What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC
> text.
> So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a
> removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3 on working
> groups).
> See attached.
>
> I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously
> "partial support" above the comments we made.
>
> I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very
> best to use the most neutral language and capture the minimal level of
> unanimity we have on Council.
> If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office
> for the rest of the day / week.
>
> Philip
>
>